 ‘I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.’ ‘I guess I should warn you, if I turn out to be particularly clear, you’ve probably misunderstood what I said.’ (Alan Greenspan) You may have had that experience of communicating something you thought was perfectly clear, only to discover that the other person got the completely wrong end of the proverbial stick. How is that possible? Was it something in what you said or, perhaps, how you said it that influenced how the message was received, distorted or misunderstood? Whatever the cause, when it does happen, you can both feel bemused, confused or frustrated – and the consequences can be difficult, damaging or dangerous. I want to suggest this occurs mainly as a result of mismatched beliefs, values, assumptions and emotions in four critical areas: language, culture, context and relationship. There are, of course, situations in which a person may wilfully misinterpret what you said or simply choose to ignore you. However, I’m thinking more here about when it happens inadvertently and out of awareness. It’s something about what influences (a) what we infer and (b) how we interpret, when we communicate – so that we can improve it. The language question means the same words can mean different things to different people, even in the same language group. The culture question means the assumptions I make appear obvious or self-evident in the groups or teams I belong to. The context question means I interpret what you say based on my own perspective and understanding of the situation. The relationship question means I filter what you say based on what I perceive and feel about the nature, dynamics and quality of our relationship. So – this where a spirit of inquiry can help: Check what the other has heard and understood. Notice the language they use. Be curious about their cultural and contextual perspectives. Sense and explore how they are feeling. Build trust.
52 Comments
 ‘I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.’ (Alan Greenspan) What could possibly go wrong? Many years ago now, I arranged to meet up with a new Ugandan colleague. We were both living in the UK, on opposite sides of London, and we had agreed to meet at 10.00am at a building close to where he lived. Having travelled across the city through busy traffic, I arrived punctually at 9.55am. By 10.30am, however, he still hadn’t turned up. I didn’t have any way to contact him and I remember feeling increasingly frustrated and disrespected. At 10.35am, he strolled up casually as if nothing was wrong. Trying not to display my irritation, I said, ‘I had thought we would meet at 10.00am.’ ‘Yes’, he agreed, with a wide, relaxed smile on his face. That puzzled me so I looked down at my watch pointedly, without saying a word. ‘Oh’, he responded – a light bulb moment. ‘10.00am in African time means sometime this morning. I didn’t imagine you’d get here at 10.00am exactly.’ This was one of my first introductions to cross-cultural values, priorities and communication. We had agreed a time without realising we had each meant a different thing by it. Yet crossed-wires can happen in all kinds of relationships. I often see it arise in tensions between line-managers and their reports; team members and their team colleagues; teams working in different functions etc. I created the sample grid (above) to help untangle the wires or to help avoid them becoming crossed in the first place. It focuses on clarity and agreement in relation to, in this case, focus and boundaries. The goal is to use the tool to help surface implicit underlying assumptions and expectations and avoid confusion or stress. It can be adapted for delegation to clarify, for instance, what is negotiable and non-negotiable when it comes to decision-making, e.g. I’ll decide; We’ll discuss and I’ll decide; We’ll discuss and we’ll decide; We’ll discuss and you’ll decide; You’ll decide and ask me if you need help. Or, when delegating a task: I don’t mind what you end up with as long as it will serve X purpose; What you end up with must meet X criteria – you decide what best does this; You must end up with X – how you do it is up to you; You must go about it X way – you sort out the details.  ‘A garden’s beauty never lies in one flower.’ (Matshona Dhliwayo) I had a fascinating experience yesterday, leading a foundational coach training workshop for insightful and enthusiastic participants from countries as diverse as Burundi, DRC, Ethiopia, Kenya, Lebanon, Mali, Nepal, Philippines, Rwanda and the UK. I was struck by the great range and depth of awareness and wisdom in the group, particularly when it came to exploring and understanding dynamics that can and do influence coaching practice in very different cultures, contexts and relationships. It left me feeling humbled, inspired and motivated to continue learning from the very different lived experiences, insights and ideas of others. What a privilege to spend time with such amazing people. Thank you, God – and to all who help me learn.  ‘For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong.’ (H.L. Mencken) Steve walked along a dry mud path between two fields in rural Uganda. To his left, the field was dry and sun-baked with a few wizened banana plants dotted around. To his right, the field was filled with lush, green banana crops. His Ugandan colleague invited Steve to reflect on: ‘Why is there a difference between the two fields, and what’s the solution for the field on the left?’ Steve wondered, ‘Perhaps the farmer who owns the field on the left isn’t thinking about or seeing his neighbour’s field, or perhaps he's too poor to make a sufficient investment to improve it.’ As I listened to Steve, I found myself wondering if the difference could have been, perhaps, a consequence of different irrigation systems, fertilisation methods or seed quality. A proposed solution: what if the farmer on the left could learn from and replicate whatever the farmer on the right is doing? In effect, I was seeing the issue as primarily technological. Without realising it, I was looking at the question through my own cultural lens and considering solutions that emerge naturally from my own cultural paradigm. And I was missing the point completely. Steve’s Ugandan colleague explained. ‘The farmer on the right lives far away in Kampala. The farmer on the left lives here, on his own land. In this context, if the farmer on the left were to copy the farmer on the right, and if his crop were suddenly to improve, the first thing that could happen is that he would be accused of witchcraft. After all, according to local belief systems, what else could explain such a seemingly miraculous change in his fortunes? This would be both devastating and dangerous for the farmer and his family and could, potentially, put their lives at risk. Assuming that didn’t happen, what certainly would happen is that his extended family, friends and community would see his betterment and expect or demand that he share his new-found prosperity with them. If he refused to do so, he and his family would be accused of being selfish, and ostracized. If he did share his new-found wealth with them all, he would be back to square one again – meaning all the extra hard work he would have to put in to improve his own lot wouldn’t be worth it. The farmer on the right, living in a city, is not subject to those pressures.’ This was a powerful illustration of the complex relationship between culture and development and helps to explain why, alongside other factors such as conflict, corruption, climate change (and sometimes sheer craziness), well-intentioned efforts and investments may be rejected, ineffective or fall apart over time. The key lays in relationship – to work alongside local people in a spirit of humility, curiosity and collaboration to understand: why are things as they are, what their hopes and aspirations are; and what would need to happen if they were to be fulfilled.  ‘In Africa there is a concept known as 'ubuntu' - the profound sense that we are human only through the humanity of others; that if we are to accomplish anything in this world it will in equal measure be due to the work and achievement of others.’ (Nelson Mandela) I ran a professional development seminar for ALA-trained and ILM-recognised Action Learning (AL) facilitators last week. Participants work for an international NGO and are from, and based in, Rwanda, South Africa and the UK. One dimension to our conversation was to explore the potential meaning, value and adaptation-application of AL in different cultural contexts. A South African participant reflected on the value of AL against the backdrop of that country’s history, particularly where black people and communities were often deprived of opportunity to exert influence over their own lives and society. AL’s focus on developing personal-group agency would align with the NGO’s philosophy and approach to empowerment in that context. A Rwandan participant, working at a refugee camp with people who speak Congolese and Burundian languages, found it tricky initially to explain AL in her cultural context; firstly because participants were more familiar with traditional didactic training, and secondly because some of the concepts and language used in classic AL were quite difficult to translate directly. A UK participant offered the African cultural concept or ubuntu, one familiar in many African contexts, as a potential model to convey the spirit of AL. The South African and Rwandan participants agreed. Ubuntu views the individual in the context of a wider group and network of interdependent relationships: ‘My life, wellbeing and success are intertwined with yours.’ |
Nick WrightI'm a psychological coach, trainer and OD consultant. Curious to discover how can I help you? Get in touch! 
Like what you read? Simply enter your email address below to receive regular blog updates!
|
RSS Feed